State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. G.Dwarakanath (Died) Rep. By Its ... vs M/S National Insurance Company, on 11 December, 2009
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY FRIDAY, the 11th day of December, 2009. First Appeal No.12/2007 1. G.Dwarakanath (Died) Rep. by its L.Rs. 2. Kalaivani 3. Minor.Dhanalakshmi 4.Minor. Dineshkumar (Minor appellants are rep. by their mother, the 1st appellant herein) All are residing at No.23, Pandian Street, Kamarajar Nagar, Puducherry. . Appellant Vs. M/s National Insurance Company, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.62-A, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Puducherry.1 Respondents (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2006, dated 20.06.2007) Consumer Complaint No.19 of 2006 G.Dwarakanath, S/o (late) M.Govindarajulu, No.23, Pandian Street, Kamarajar Nagar, Puducherry. . Complainant Vs. M/s National Insurance Company, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.62-A, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Puducherry.1 Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT TMT. P.V.R. DHANALAKSHMI, MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
M/s Law Solvers, Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Tvl.
L.Sathish & S.Doraisamy, Advocates, Puducherry O R D E R This appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.19/2007 dated 20.06.2007. The appeal is preferred by the complainant as the complaint preferred by the complainant was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess effective driving licence to drive the complainants vehicle and hence the complaint has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are: The complainant is the owner of the vehicle TATA LPT 1109 and the vehicle was registered on 14.08.2002 as PY-01/T-3101 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party. There is no dispute about the insurance. The driver of the vehicle was one Mr.R.Gopi.
According to the complainant, he was holding a licence issued in No.R/TN/031/005576/2002 on 24.09.2002 with an authorization to drive transport vehicle. The said vehicle met with an accident on 06.12.2002 during the period when the policy was in force and the complainant preferred the claim before the opposite party for settlement of the claim of Rs.1,84,000/-. The said claim was rejected by the opposite party on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold valid driving licence as per the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules as the vehicle which is a medium motor vehicle could be driven only by a person having effective driving licence consisting of LMV + transport vehicle endorsement. The opposite party was of the view that the driver did not have requisite driving licence to drive the medium motor vehicle and hence the claim of the complainant was rejected. The complainant preferred the complaint before the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- towards insurance for repair of the vehicle; Rs.6,78,684/- being the dues payable to the complainants financier and also to pay future dues of loan; Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and injury and Rs.10,000/- for costs.
3. The opposite party has filed the counter statement and according to the counter statement, the repudiation was legally justifiable.
The driver of the vehicle Mr.R.Gopy was having a driving licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle was registered as a medium motor vehicle. The said driver was not having effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. The District Forum hold that the complainant was a consumer entitled to sue the opposite party in the capacity of consumer and rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess effective driving licence to drive the complainants vehicle. It is against this order the present appeal is preferred.
4. We heard Mrs.Kamala Kumar, Learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.Sathish, Learned counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party.
There is no dispute that the vehicle was registered as a medium motor vehicle Goods vehicle by the Registering Authority, Puducherry and the Certificate of Registration issued by the Registering Authority, Puducherry shows the class of the vehicle as Medium Motor Vehicle Goods Vehicle. The only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence at the time when the accident took place?. The driving licence of the driver was produced and is marked as Ex.C7 and the said document shows that the driver Mr.R.Gopi was licensed to drive throughout India vehicles of the following description and valid upto 27.09.2005, namely, Light Motor Vehicle LMV 06/07/1998/TN/31 and he was also authorized to drive transport vehicle Badge No.84939, dt.28.09.1999/TN/31 and the said licence was issued by the Assistant Registering Authority, Cuddalore. It is no doubt true that the Superintendent of the R.T.O. Office, Cuddalore, who was examined as RW2, has stated in her deposition that as per the endorsement in the licence (Ex.C7), the driver could drive only Light Motor Vehicle carrying transport goods and other types of vehicle and the medium transport vehicle cannot be driven by using transport badge specified in the licence. She has also stated that the endorsement of transport badge would refer to an authorization to drive all categories of vehicle of transport nature and this statement was qualified by her next statement that the driver was authorized to drive only Light Motor Vehicle carrying transport goods. It is in this factual situation the question has to be considered whether the driver was having valid and effective driving licence. We have been referred to the definition of Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter called Act for convenience) Medium Goods Vehicle in Section 2(23) of the Act; Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle in Section 2(24) of the Act; Heavy Goods Vehicle in Section 2(16) of the Act; Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle in Section 2(17) of the Act and Transport Vehicle in Section 2(47) of the Act and the provisions relating to the grant of licence in Chapter II of the Act, particularly, Sections 9 and 10 of the Act which deals Forms and contents of Licence to drive. We have also been referred to Section 10 of the Act empowers the Central Government to frame rules prescribing the form and contents of the driving licence. The Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 have been framed on the basis of the exercise of the powers on the Central Government by the various sections referred in the preamble to the said Rule. In so far as the driving licence is concerned, Rule 14 relates to the application for the grant of driving licence and Rule 16 deals with form of driving licence.
Section 11 of the Act deals with addition to driving licence and Rule 17 deals with the application to addition of transport vehicle with the driving certificate in Form No.6. We have been referred to the Form No.4 which deals with the form of application for driving licence. Form No.6 deals with form of driving licence and Form No.8 deals with application for addition of new class of vehicle to a driving licence, the authorization to drive transport vehicle number and authorization to drive transport vehicle with badge number are specified. On the facts of the case, the driver of the vehicle was licensed to drive a vehicle of LMV description with authorization to drive transport vehicle with badge No.84939.
The Superintendent, who was examined as RW2, has not produced any material, circular or any other documents to show that the badge number 84939 given in the driving licence issued to the driver would confine the LMV of transport nature. She has not produced the application form filed by the driver to show that he applied for the addition to drive LMV transport vehicle. Learned Counsel for the respondent/OP has also not produced any authority to establish that the authorization to drive the transport vehicle in the driving licence would mean the driver was authorized to drive the Light Motor Transport Vehicle.
On the other hand, the definition of Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21) of the Act, would show that the light motor vehicle has been defined to mean the transport vehicle or omni bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. Therefore, when a licence has been granted to Light Motor Vehicle that would empower him to drive a transport vehicle the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms and a separate authorisation to drive the transport vehicle is not needed as the licence would enable to drive a type of light motor transport vehicle within the prescribed unladen weight. The definition of medium passenger motor vehicle, shows that it has been defined to mean any public transport vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than a Light Motor Vehicle.
The definition of heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle would mean any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or motor car, the unladen weight of which exceeds 12,000 kilograms.
5. Admittedly, it is not a heavy passenger motor vehicle and equally it is not a light motor vehicle and its only a medium passenger motor vehicle. The term transport vehicle is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act and it means a public service vehicle, goods carriage , or educational institution or a private service vehicle and the expression private service vehicle is defined in Section 2(33) of the Act and it means a motor vehicle constructed to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by and on behalf of the owner of the said vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes. Therefore, the vehicle in question would be a private service vehicle and consequently it is a transport vehicle. The submission of learned counsel for opposite party that the drier of the vehicle in question, has been authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle of transport nature is accepted, then, there is no need for the addition made to the licence already issued to drive light motor vehicle with an authorization to drive the transport vehicle. As we have already pointed out that the Superintendent of R.T.O. Office, Cuddalore has not produced any documentary evidence or the application for addition in support of her statement that the transport badge in the licence would mean that the driver could drive light motor vehicle carrying transport goods.
We find the issue has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Others (Appeal (civil)No.574/2008), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has noticed the definition of various kinds of goods vehicle and also referred to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and has held that the expression transport vehicle is now substituted for the Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle or the driver, who had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle, is authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well. The Honble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Others (Civil Appeal No.1102/2009) has again considered the matter and considered the effect of different terms of licence granted under the Act and held that a person having a licence to drive the light motor vehicle cannot drive the transport vehicle unless the driving licence specifically entitled to do so. The Honble Supreme Court also hold that the driving licence has to be specifically endorsed to drive the transport vehicle. As Section 3 of the Act requires the driver to have an endorsement to drive such vehicle. On the facts of this case, it is clear the driver was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle and there is also an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle and the endorsement would authorize to ply the transport vehicle. The District Forum has not considered the effect of the endorsement in the driving licence. The Superintendent of R.T.O., Cuddalore (RW2) has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the authorization to drive the transport vehicle is restricted to drive light motor vehicle of transport nature and not all transport vehicles, as defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court has referred to the amendment carried on or before 28.03.2001 to the Rule which provides licence which is to be granted in Form No.6 must have specific authorization to drive transport vehicle.
Since in this case there is an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, we are of the view that the view of the opposite party that the driver was not having valid driving licence is not sustainable in view of the two decisions of Honble Supreme Court referred to above. Hence, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to determine the quantum of relief.
6. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. No costs.
The order of the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.19/2006 dated 20.06.2007, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum to determine the quantum of relief claimed by the complainant.
Dated this the 11th December, 2009.
(N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN) PRESIDENT (P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI) MEMBER